Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

kkleiner writes "Led by Dr. Mats Brännström, a team of surgeons at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden are giving Sara Ottosson, now 25 years old, hope that she may one day fulfill her dream of giving birth to a baby. The uterus will come from a very special donor: Eva Ottosson, Sara's mother. Sara's operation will mark only the second time transplantation of a uterus has been attempted in humans, and the first time between a mother and daughter."

If mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway, and that's gotta help with the possibility of not needing to take anti-rejection meds too. Does make one wonder just how well a uterus possibly in its 50's will hold up to pregnancy though? Just because you transplant it into a younger person doesn't make the organ suddenly young again.

The body eventually rejects anything that is foreign. That's the whole purpose of the immune system, and it has unique protein keys for each person. All a donation from mom means is that the reaction will be slower, and there will be less of a need to suppress the immune system.

Unless she is planning on doing some reasonably serious spawning, 'eventually' won't be a deal-killing problem. Unlike a donor heart or something, it just has to last long enough to produce the desired number of children.

In that vein, I'd be curious to know if there are any special complexities, compared to other organs, with immune reactions in-utero. Embryos, after all, are aggressively expanding foreign organisms; but any species whose immune system suppressed them wouldn't be in the running for long(

The studies show surprisingly little impact to the embryo from immunosuppressant drugs. And there's already a large body of data on it; a successful pregnancy is generally considered one of the best signs that a person has adapted to a (non-uterine) transplant.

Every mother carries cells within her body for life of the kids she has conceived (not necessarily given birth to). The female immune system has several features designed to inhibit normal immunological responses during pregnancy...

It's not that cut and dry. Placental integrity may be affected by the age of the uterus, which could lead to problems during gestation. Then again, hormones in the daughter's body may change the condition of the tissue the uterus is composed of.

The stimulation to cause orgasm may come from other parts of the body (clitoris, g-spot, etc), but so far I haven't heard the uterus as one of the erogenous zones.

Google or wikipedia for Uterine Orgasm [wikipedia.org] if you dare. I'm not sure if it ranks alongside G-Spots and female ejaculations as a subject of dispute, but it's definitely not unheard of. Even without that, anecdotal evidence supports a change in orgasm after a hysterectomy.

I don't know anything about the donor so i'm not saying it's a big deal or not, but to dismiss it outright by saying that "mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway" is a bit preemptive. There was a doctor who was taken to court for remo [heraldsun.com.au]

I feel bad for the girl who has problems with infertility, but is it really responsible to put your child at higher risk by having it grow in an essentially experimental situation, when you could just deal with your unfortunate problem, make the best of a bad situation, and possibly adopt?

Seriously, that sounds like the most reasonable thing to do. Why go through the mess of transplantation of that magnitude?
Random question: Would a mother who used a surrogate be referred to as the biological mother or is genetic mother a better term? Isn't the surrogate biologically the mother (though not genetically)?

If this is a world-first, regardless of the outcome, these doctors will learn from this experiment, and the body of human knowledge will grow. I think it's entirely worth it to do crazy medical stuff like this when people volunteer.

It isn't the same, and wouldn't be enough to satisfy many women. And I say that as a woman who can't get pregnant due to a lack of a functioning uterus. Part of me desperately wants to have children (in spite of being a lesbian, and despite my partner bringing 4 kids from her previous marriage), and I can say quite plainly that adoption or using a surrogate isn't the same. If there was a surgical procedure that could give me the ability to bear children myself, I would leap on it. And if the opportunity to

It isn't a question of personal satisfaction... there's other forces at play there. Instinct, biological urges, hormones going haywire within peoples' systems

Look, if all that was driving me was instinct and biological urges, I'd probably have more kids with more women than I could reasonably remember. I think that being able to overcome instinct and urges is what makes us human. To think otherwise would imply that you should be OK to have teenagers fucking at every corner. If you're OK with that, then sorry, I'm barking up the wrong tree. Otherwise, what you pass for an argument doesn't fly by me so far, sorry.

It is pathetic how many resources are wasted on fertility medicine. There are plenty of children in need of adoption (not the foreign adopt a stolen kid kind); many children languish in foster care, only to graduate to the penal system when they turn 18. These kids could have radically different life paths if, folks instead invested the money, that would have gone to a fertility clinic, in an adopted child's education and upbringing..

No, you have to remember. Squirting out one of your own makes you a wise sage and quite nearly a saint for looking after your own responsibility for the next eighteen years. It's everyone else who doesn't squirt one out and demand to replicate their genetic structure like wild dogs that are selfish and self-centered. Media outlets act like the people in this family are a cross between victims and heroes, when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.

when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.

Someone is very hasty to judge on the internet. It's entirely possible that she'd adopt too, having your own children and adopting is not mutually exclusive. She obviously has her own reasons she wanted to have a child herself, don't know why you'd boil it down to "If you want baby, adopt." And all that I've heard about adopting is that it is not an easy process. I can't imagine the process is any easier in Sweden, where the population is not booming. It is plausible that transplanting her mother's ute

All these orphans are unwanted why not just perform REALLY late term abortions on them? Nothing magical happens by traveling down a vagina. The NY Times reported in 2007 some 32% of children never traveled down one, they were delivered via cesarian. Since they are not old enough to survive on their own (hence the need for fostering/ adoption) save us all some money and just pop a 22 round in them, or use them for science experiments instead of the poor bunnies and chimps which are getting rights anyways. Ev

How many resources are wasted on curing people of blindness? How many resources are wasted on curing deafness? On fixing broken limbs? On cleft palate? On spinal deformities? On countless things that are about quality of life, not survival?

So, is it your view that because someone views something as so important that it's worth taking on a major risk to their life to do, that because you disagree with it (having never been in anywhere close to such a situation), it should be banned?

Most of them, I'd wager. The "deaf community" is very hostile to cochlear implants -- they actually think being deaf is a good thing.

There's a neat documentary (it's watch instant on netflix) called "Sound and Fury". If you didn't hate "deaf culture", you will after watching this eye-opening documentary.

Never mind the rampant illiteracy and extraordinarily low unemployment, these idiots think that being deaf is perfectly normal and that they're not limited in way. Thus, they refuse their children the one technology that will make their lives easier.

Hell, one deaf school fired it's superintendent for not being deaf from birth. These people are evil.

I know what you are saying is true in many cases, but you might want to be careful getting all your information from a single documentary. There are a lot of deaf people, maybe even most, who aren't so insane......

Also, just to note, there's a sequel to the documentary called Sound and Fury 6 Years Later. Turns out the two deaf parents decided to implant Heather 3 years later when she was 9, and even the mom got implanted. All in all, I think the parents acted in a fairly understandable way. Initially, they were against implanting since it brought up too much emotions about deaf people being inferior, but they later accepted that it'd be better if the kids were able to walk two worlds so to speak. Frankly their issues were so similar to the ones faced by immigrant cultures that it was rather eerie.

Those that fight to have their own child, stay in the gene pool. Those that don't and raise someone else's, exit the gene pool. You don't get much stronger evolutionary pressure than that. Also from what I've heard it's not that hard to find people to adopt babies or very young children. Those you find in foster care are often older, taken out of their home because they've suffered neglect, abuse or molestation and alcoholics or junkies as parents. As a result many of them have developed huge problems of their own, which many people are reluctant to adopt. And if you end up with someone that's already in the rebellious phase who likes to point out you're not his real parents, well the amount of bonding you get will be limited. Even if people got other the part about having their own child, don't expect the institutions to be empty.

It's an interesting question: On the one hand, every medical procedure is experimental at some point and a statistically powerful population of poor suckers biting the bullet is the only way that that changes. On the other hand, infertility treatments are arguably 'elective' and place the hypothetical child at risk.

Unfortunately, this brings us right into the deep end of the dubiously possible business of trying to talk sensibly about the moral interests of entities that only hypothetically exist. Any de

Pregnancies while on immunosuppressants are not rare. There's a huge body of data on their effects on fetuses. There's no body of data on humans born from transplanted uteruses, of course, but the immunosuppressant side is already well covered, and at least in theory, that is the area of concern.

The risk to the patient is *very* real. Transplants are dangerous in the best of circumstances. The patient only needs to carry the transplant for 1 1/2 to 2 years (there's a period after the transplant where they monitor the organ for signs of failure, then there's at least one attempt at implantation, then the organ is removed at the time of birth) -- but there's still significnt chance of risk -- almost certainly a double-digit chance of death. But here's how I personally look at it. The rate of death during pregnancy before modern medicine was about 1.5%, and the average woman had many children (let's say 7 or so) to account for the high rate of infant and child mortality. That's a 10% chance of death per woman. Yet if women hadn't taken that risk -- sometimes accidentally, but more often, knowingly -- we, as a species, would not exist.

<quote><p>Yep, give the breeders a "way out" of their grief and allow them to keep spawning children knowing that there are people who will take care of their "mistake" so they don't have to.</p></quote>

Irregardless of the reproductive choices of some, all children have the right to love and a chance to thrive. No child is a mistake. Some are victims of circumstances, but never a mistake.

We should be willing to care for children. They have right to be cared for.

I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

No it isn't. There aren't a lot of people dying of starvation due to scarcity of food, which is the usual way of indicating overpopulation. Seems to me that people starving these days are mostly due to neglect or problems with distribution, both of which would happen with half the population we have now.

Environmental damage is not a sign of overpopulation either, that's poor resource management and again, could and would be happening with half our population levels.

There's a variety of different ways uterine transplants can be done, and different surgeons are looking at different ones. Two major differences are whether you're dealing donors from cadavers and donors from live patients. Donor uteruses from cadavers obviously aren't doing their owner any good. Donor uteruses from live patients will be generally from surgical situations where the uterus would be removed anyway (clearly not in this situation, but in the general case...). The use of cadavers allows a lot more of the surrounding tissue to be transplanted, which makes blood vessel reconnections easier; however, organs from cadavers are more likely to have complications.

My sympathies to your GF; antiepileptics are generally pretty nasty during pregnancy to the fetus. My spouse is also epileptic, although is trying to wean herself off them. I myself follow this news closely.

Fucking adopt. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to xerox as exact a copy of yourself as possible, how about you save all the money involved in this process and just adopt a kid or two? For the price most people spend in various attempts to squirt one of their own out (aside from this particular incident, of course), they could adopt someone and have their entire college fund taken care of from day one.

I know I'm supposed to feel sorry for people like this. Boo hoo, you can't

I fully agree. Their actions are socially irresponsible, to say the least.

To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.

It's not even known whether Rokitansky syndrome is genetic, but I notice how you just assume it is. If you want to talk about "attacks against the gene pool", why aren't you arguing that the numerous childhood diseases with *known* genetic components stop getting treatment?

He's talking about the gene pool, and as far as the gene pool is concerned, there is no difference. Plus, the cause of Rokitansky syndrome is unknown. And many women who will be candidates for this apart from those with Rokitansky syndrome are those who lost their uterus for various reasons, such as cancer.

If doctors suspect any kind of cancer on you, the first thing they'll ask you before doing any tests will be if there's a history on your family. Cancer is not genetic, but there is a genetic predisposition for cancer.

Things get worked out through many generations, unless we prevent evolution from doing its thing.

There's a genetic predisposition to *some* cancers, and even if you have a particular cancer that has a genetic predisposition to it doesn't mean that *you* have a predisposition to it. Plus, there are plenty of other ways one can lose a uterus.

And then why are one in every 5,000 women born without a uterus, then?

FYI: If you just let children with genetic diseases die, would not the same apply there?

That's the problem with the logic presented: the argument that we should be just letting genetic diseases die argues that we should let children with genetic diseases die, but *not* ban treatment for women who don't have a uterus.

To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.

What you're describing is only consistent with the idea of gradualism in evolution, which was discarded by most evolutionary biologists in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

Natural selection isn't really a constant force in any species throughout the history of life. It doesn't need to constantly act on a species to keep that species in shape. Evolution acts to create and destroy whole species, it doesn't act to improve species.

Talking about evolution and human genetics gets even more ridiculous in

To blind people. Fucking get a cane. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to see like everyone else, how about you save all the money involved in this process and just get a cane or two?

Sorry, but many surgeries are about quality of life. And it's easy to play down another person's needs, but when it's your own, suddenly it's different.

FYI: Müllerian agenesis (aka, Rokitansky Syndrome) doesn't just affect the uterus. The upper part of the vagina is also part of the M

Except that blind people are currently alive and them gaining the ability to see will not increase the human population (which I believe is already too much). What's wrong with adoption, anyway? I mean, sure, she can have the opinion that having a real children is better (and she wouldn't necessarily be wrong), but what is the actual reason?

So it is your view that it's okay to override what is most important to someone

I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.

Why not just cut out a couple steps and dump birth control into the public water supply?

I'm not sure that's safe. However, if something out of our control happened that rendered most people unable to reproduce, I don't think I'd care too much (although I wouldn't want to force it upon them).

I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.

Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life, but oppose a different quality of life procedure because it will "increase the human population".

Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life

If you read it, I never actually said anything about myself. But if you want to know, then yes, if it would improve the quality if life of society as a whole (or in the future), then yes. I wouldn't want to force infertility upon someone, but not allowing them to have kids is something that I would support if I believed that the situation called for it.

So if a woman wanted to have a child enough that she was willing to give up her sight for it, would you change your mind? What if she was willing to take on a 1 in 4 chance of *dying*? Because I wouldn't be surprised if those are her odds in this procedure.

Dunno about there, but adopting babies almost impossible in US. There simply is not enough to fulfill the need.

I have some relatives that tried to "save the world" as they put it, and adopt kids (not babies). These are very intelligent parents, one has masters in nursing, the second a masters in mathematics and education. The kids were not emotionally stable when they got them at ages from about 8-10 years old. 30 years later one killed himself after losing total visitation rights to his kids, a second

The ending bit of the video attached to the article - "if this fails, she plans to adopt". Can you blame her for trying before giving up?

You say "can't replicate like a feral cat", but that is not what is really happening. Those parents who abandon their children usually breed like feral cats (hence there is a great supply of such children), whereas in her case it is not mentioned anywhere that she wants a "houseful" of babies.

You also say that people should better spend their money in different ways. But if they earned it, don't they have the right to choose what to do with it? [as long as it is not something illegal - like buying guns and killing other people]

I may have acted differently, had I been in their shoes, but I can't say I have reasons to say they are stupid or irresponsible.

She sees it as a (highly dangerous) chance to have a kid naturally, the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot, apparently) sees it as a way to further science. It's pretty much win-win all around. I don't see why everyone here is railing against it so hard, since in most cases science for science's sake is a laudable goal around here. I imagine it is partly due to the fact Slashdot is incredibly skewed towards not only the male demographic, but the single-male-who-hates-children demographic.
If this so

How can you criticize a woman for doing something like this? She wants to have her own child by any means necessary that's her decision to make. There has been and always will be a different sense of nurturing from the womb onward. My mother is a mother of 4 but a mom to 14+(and this number grows.) She will show love and kindness to any child that comes into her life, but with her 4 boys there's something special. Im sure this is true of any caring mother. It takes a special kind of caring and compassionate person to be an adoptive parent. I applaud these people and I am thankful that they exist in the world, but as a man there will be nothing more special to me than to hold my baby that came from the connection i share with my partner. I know she will feel the same.

How about you focus your misdirected anger at the men and women of the world who choose to spread their legs without thinking of the consequences. Why should they go about their activities with the idea that "meh, someone will adopt this baby." I understand that not every woman has a choice. Some are forced into screwed up situations and they would rather adopt than abort, but these cases are outnumbered by the idiots who engage in senseless acts of procreation.

Nothing wrong with preferring to have biological children, of course. But it's still a serious question to some of us. Why should a baby that is a result of your DNA more special than someone else's child? I always thought the joys of parenting were to do with human relationships rather than the passing on of one's DNA. Isn't this "something special" really just sentimentality or instinct?

As for the second part, do I really need to dignify that with a response?

A mother's relationship with her biological child starts with the very moment that child comes from her body. The erratic emotional state of a mother(crazy love or crazy hatred) helps build that bond from the start. Breastfeeding for the very first time, and time again after that. According to the women i've shared this story with, these are crucial moments in the bonding process. Obviously adoptive parents arent going to get this start. Thats not to say they wont love the child, but this is part of that sp

I get what you're saying. But if biological children have a greater bond, then doesn't that imply that parents who adopt don't love their children as much? Or do you think there are some important distinctions between "bond" and "love" in this context? In retrospect, one can see the differences, but if one has only raised an adopted child, then do you really think their relationship is somehow quantitatively less special or advantageous? If you can have biological children, then that's great, and you can em

This is great for writing medical papers, but in truth it is simply irresponsible medicine. If she can't have a child, well, life's a bitch. If this works, she is going to be on massive medication, like any transplant patient. To conceive and carry a child under those circumstances is simply nuts. Even organizations that totally support transplant patients point out the massive risks [transplantliving.org] involved.

If this woman is this desperate for a child, she needs psychological counseling more than she needs a new uterus.

I think now would be a good time to begin archiving our important scientific and mathematic discoveries for the future sentient beings that may eventually take our place. Primates, I'm looking at you...

I am developing a language that any intelligent creature grasping basic mathematics should be able to decipher. Previous attempts seem sophomoric to me, and assume too much (low res. raster of a man, child and woman? Don't make me laugh).

In the stone and crystalline tablets we should denounce the perception of the knowledge as coming from a race of Gods, and to this end include the story of our great achievements in gene pool pollution.

Do you have a genetic defect? Welcome to the gene pool! We'll be happy to go through any lengths to ensure you can spread your corrupted genetic sequence on to other lifeforms -- Even if it means growing your offspring in another being, or transplanting wombs!

Natural Selection be damned; We'll do whatever it takes to not discriminate against your deformities in the bedroom.

Of course I would tone down the irony and describe the principals in simple genetic and mathematical terms for our successors. However, I assume my fellow Slashdoters -- being of the same culture and language -- can easily grasp the principals I have sarcastically alluded to above.

Made the same mistake in my comment below, before looking up the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.

Scary part: Relevance 1 in 5000. Main symptom: no uterus _and_ no vagina.

Wikipedia has also the following insane story:"In 1988, a teenager living in the small southern African nation of Lesotho came to local doctors with all the symptoms of a woman in labor. The doctors were puzzled, however, because she did not have a vagina, only a shallow skin dimple. Doctors traced her pregnancy to a knife wound to her abdomen 278 days earlier, after she had practiced fellatio on her boyfriend. The sperm had leaked from her stomach to her abdominal cavity and fertilized one of her eggs. This case was reported by Dr. Richard Paulson, head of the University of Southern California Fertility Program in Los Angeles, February 3, 2010.[3]"

The upper vagina, at least. The upper vagina and the uterus form from the Müllerian duct. The lower vagina forms from the urogenital sinus. The boundary between the two is the hymen.

Trivia: In men, the Mullerian duct degenerates to a tiny structure attached to the prostate and wrapped around the urethra, called the "prostatic utricle". It contracts during orgasm just the same as in women.

Story was posted at 11:25 PM, yours at 12:17 AM. So it took Slashdot at most 45 minutes to think of adoption. This woman presumably has been thinking about it longer. She's consulted with doctors, who are generally not idiots. Her mother is obviously on board, so it's safe to assume that her family is involved in this decision. So there are multiple people who are talking to her about this.

You can't possibly believe adoption had neither occurred to her, nor had it been suggested to her at some poin

So, you're saying that because the idea ran through her head, she must have given it proper thought.

According to the article, suffering of infertility seems to be more unbearable than being unadopted. Some times, I think that orphans are societal rejects. We act as if there is no urgency to put them in families.

I'm sure that uterus will become immortal, passing from mother to daughter for all eternity.

Somehow we have to allow people choice, and yet, the human imperative to breed means they go out and pass on their deformities to the next generation, making the problem worse.

Ultimately, an enlightened person will come to the conclusion that genetically engineering the human race (at least selecting the best available of the couple's sperm and ova) is the only way that all of humanity will not become

Bah, they only suspect that because they are paranoid because their humors are out of balance because their chi is misdirected because they have subluxations. A good vertebral adjustment and trepanation will make them realize Dr. Bob is a modern day medical messiah.